Sun Fin wrote:So this is where we differ. I do think every relationship should be entered with the intention of working towards marriage. I'm not saying that dating is an instant long term commitment but if you don't think it will work then I don't see the point. Now my view is shaped by my religious beliefs but it has been borne out in my experience. I'm yet to see a couple attempt 'a casual sex' friendship without at least one party falling for the other and ending up hurt and rejected. I just don't think you can separate sex from emotions as cleanly as this world would want you to believe.

It's true that I, personally, can't separate my emotions from sex, but that doesn't mean that others are incapable of it. Ultimately, people have to decide for themselves, and it's pretty likely that tons of people make a mistake in this regard. Either they think the other person will change their mind, or maybe they mistakenly think they can separate emotions and sex, or whatever. But the choice is ultimately theirs to make, and I don't think it's my business to tell them it's wrong.

Naturally, your faith being important to you personally, it will shape the values you hold on many subjects, sex included. I think your view is completely valid, I just disagree with it.

Sun Fin wrote:I agree that relationships borne out in that way are just as valid. That doesn't mean that it is a healthy approach though. For every one relationship which does come to fruition in that way will be another 10 or 15 which end in far more painful terms. However I guess it is important to say that relationships built on friendships aren't perfect either, my girlfriend and I have struggles as well. However I think that a higher proportion if they are built like this last and those which are short living are going to be less painful break ups because you haven't got so involved.

Yeah, I tend to agree with most of this. Again, this just comes down to personal choice - if someone wants to be involved in a relationship like that, it's not really my place to tell them no. All relationships have problems - the dedication and understanding of the people involved determine if those problems are relationship-ending ones or bumps in the road to be remembered later on.

Bush Leagues wrote: But the choice is ultimately theirs to make, and I don't think it's my business to tell them it's wrong.

I agree with everything you said other than maybe this sentence. Yes it is absolutely their choice to make but that doesn't mean we shouldn't advise people and give our opinions! If we don't tell our friends their making a mistake we can't say 'I told you so' two months later which is like the best bit of friendship .

Sun Fin wrote:I agree with everything you said other than maybe this sentence. Yes it is absolutely their choice to make but that doesn't mean we shouldn't advise people and give our opinions! If we don't tell our friends their making a mistake we can't say 'I told you so' two months later which is like the best bit of friendship .... joking of course...

CaoCaoTsundere wrote:I should have named this thread "society is in decadency" or "kids nowadays are despicable" because that was my point not sex itself, the other day some kids were killing a cat in the neighborhood...future serial killers

Watching the responses of this post, i have noticed that i was right, in fact i'm outdated. Rip 90s generation

It's not so much that, I don't think. I was born in '86, and for the most part I agree with you. I'm not a fan of sex sans attachment / romance / love, as I've been rather emphatic about arguing on other threads. The thing is that I tend to think that for a lot of people, sex has a tendency to form its own attachments on a purely neurochemical level whether we like it or not. People wouldn't get lovesick or heartbroken otherwise.

Sun Fin wrote:

Bush Leagues wrote:

Sun Fin wrote:I'm really happy that I'm building a friendship with my girlfriend that isn't purely built on physical attraction.

Let's talk about this for a bit, because this is also interesting.

So I would say that physical attraction (and each person's physical needs) are also really important to a relationship, but other things are also critical. I'm also of the opinion that a deep emotional bond makes the physical things (particularly sex) even better. I've had sex when it didn't mean much emotionally, and sex where I was completely in love with my partner. The first one is nothing to right home about. The second one is something that makes life worth living.

Sorry I didn't mean to give off the wrong impression there. I think that my girlfriend is beautiful and I wouldn't date her if there wasn't physical attraction. The point I was making is that there needs to be more than that. I saw many of my friends at university fall for a girl, have passionate sex for a month or two and then when that burned out they realised that they had nothing in common and actually they had no interest in trying to find something to keep them together. As opposed to the way round we're doing it (my girlfriend is also called Beth by the way ) where we found ourselves attracted to each other and have built a friendship whilst slowly becoming more intimate. I feel that is a far healthier way round to do it. Then when/if we're ready to make a permanent commitment, ie marriage we will begin having sex.

I can see where you're both coming from on this one, but I have to respectfully defer with both opinions presented here. I'll start by saying where I agree.

Bush Leagues, what you're saying here is very much true - the biological element and the emotional-intellectual-spiritual element of a romantic coupling tend to go together, and you can't really do the latter without at least having some basis in the former. Sun Fin, I agree with you also that without building up the emotional-intellectual-spiritual side of the romance, the biological-attraction part can't really ultimately be sustained.

But I recoil at the very idea of a model relationship, as though all relationships have to develop in this preconceived, linear way. Sex-ed in public school taught us that you progress from lust to trust to sex to something more permanent, but my personal experiences have been a lot messier. Full disclosure: I'm no role model for anybody, I should say. I've had one one-night stand which was (on my side) purely based on biological, physical interest - that was a total train-wreck. Other romances I had which started from purely physical interest turned out to be not what my would-be partner was looking for, or else unhealthy for everybody involved.

And the romance which preceded my marriage began with something more like intellectual interest, if that makes any sense. When we first met, the now-Mrs. WeiWenDi was willing to argue with me online and off, and discuss art and history and politics with me, and I started getting more interested in her on that level. It's kind of weird to put it this way, but the intellectual component almost turned into physical attraction. (She still teases me about that.)

I'm not saying people have to do things my way. In fact, most people probably shouldn't. But the idea of having 'common interests' or 'common bonds' before you start off is kind of BS. Part of the attraction for me was how different my wife was, and how she was willing to argue or even fight with me when she thought I was wrong. And part of the adventure was being open to new experiences. I was more into nerdy classical stuff; I didn't even know about Jin Yong's wuxia novels or Mo Yan before my wife introduced them to me. She's shown me way more contemporary popular Chinese movies than I thought I'd ever see. And in turn I introduced her to Lord of the Rings.

Obviously you need some kind of common basis to start from, but women and men are different, biologically, emotionally, intellectually, ontologically. And any successful heterosexual romance will need to involve negotiating that difference successfully, rather than pretending it isn't there.

But yes, leaving sex until after marriage is usually a good idea. (Again, though, I'm no role model. I never followed that rule myself, and I came to this conclusion largely through getting repeatedly burned like a total idiot.)

Bush Leagues wrote:I basically agree that society has serious issues. I don't think this is the fault of the new generation, or technology, or anything like that. I have a suspicion as to why things are becoming the way they are, but that's all it is. Maybe it's always been like this, and we just don't know because we didn't live in those times. I feel like I know next-to-nothing about how everyday society was like in modern times (except the last 10-15 years or so).

Well, every age has its problems. I have a sneaking suspicion that most of our problems nowadays can be attributed to the changes in the social structure that took place between the early '70's and mid '80's at the collective hands of our parents' generation - the sexual revolution and Reaganomics, taken together, have changed the basic rules of engagement. Wages have been stagnating since 1978; even though more and more women are working outside the home, working-class families are still having problems making ends meet.

In such circumstances, and such an environment, cultural confusion may indeed be shaping people's attitudes and behaviour, including in ways that CaoCaoTsundere is describing here.

Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.

WeiWenDi wrote:Bush Leagues, what you're saying here is very much true - the biological element and the emotional-intellectual-spiritual element of a romantic coupling tend to go together, and you can't really do the latter without at least having some basis in the former. Sun Fin, I agree with you also that without building up the emotional-intellectual-spiritual side of the romance, the biological-attraction part can't really ultimately be sustained.

But I recoil at the very idea of a model relationship, as though all relationships have to develop in this preconceived, linear way. Sex-ed in public school taught us that you progress from lust to trust to sex to something more permanent, but my personal experiences have been a lot messier. Full disclosure: I'm no role model for anybody, I should say. I've had one one-night stand which was (on my side) purely based on biological, physical interest - that was a total train-wreck. Other romances I had which started from purely physical interest turned out to be not what my would-be partner was looking for, or else unhealthy for everybody involved.

And the romance which preceded my marriage began with something more like intellectual interest, if that makes any sense. When we first met, the now-Mrs. WeiWenDi was willing to argue with me online and off, and discuss art and history and politics with me, and I started getting more interested in her on that level. It's kind of weird to put it this way, but the intellectual component almost turned into physical attraction. (She still teases me about that.)

I'm not saying people have to do things my way. In fact, most people probably shouldn't. But the idea of having 'common interests' or 'common bonds' before you start off is kind of BS. Part of the attraction for me was how different my wife was, and how she was willing to argue or even fight with me when she thought I was wrong. And part of the adventure was being open to new experiences. I was more into nerdy classical stuff; I didn't even know about Jin Yong's wuxia novels or Mo Yan before my wife introduced them to me. She's shown me way more contemporary popular Chinese movies than I thought I'd ever see. And in turn I introduced her to Lord of the Rings.

Obviously you need some kind of common basis to start from, but women and men are different, biologically, emotionally, intellectually, ontologically. And any successful heterosexual romance will need to involve negotiating that difference successfully, rather than pretending it isn't there.

But yes, leaving sex until after marriage is usually a good idea. (Again, though, I'm no role model. I never followed that rule myself, and I came to this conclusion largely through getting repeatedly burned like a total idiot.)

I never said anything about common interests, you bought that in yourself. All I said was a friendship needs to be built on a basis on something other than physicality. That can be on anything, whether its common interests like Bush Leagues, intellectual stimulation like your experience or on religious convictions which is much of what my girlfriend and I have in common.

I didn't disagree with anything you said WWD and I still feel that the best way to approach someone you are attracted to is to build a friendship with them and let it develop from there. I did acknowledge that other ways can and do work out. However your experience fits in with what I was saying I feel, OK the physical attraction came later but the relationship that has worked is one that was built on something more than just physicality.

CaoCaoTsundere wrote:I should have named this thread "society is in decadency" or "kids nowadays are despicable" because that was my point not sex itself, the other day some kids were killing a cat in the neighborhood...future serial killers

Watching the responses of this post, i have noticed that i was right, in fact i'm outdated. Rip 90s generation

Our generation of the 90's were hardly celibate monks. Nor as I have nodded to elsewhere in this thread, were previous generations in modern times. Aspects of sex has changed, some worryingly so (difference between porn and reality) and the way it is done but past generations hardly kept it in their pants. Romance has changed, the way marriage is viewed has changed certainly.

Now onto the two other points

1) Decadence. I agree, society is decadent. Hard to argue otherwise when there is obesity crises in US and the UK. We live in a consumer culture and that is a decidedly dark part of it as is the amount of waste, not only of food but things like clothing. Again though, why blame the current generation? The 90's was hardly a generation of austereness, I remember the logo's, the fads, the waste and we are passing that on on the next generation. The difference between now and when I was a kid is there is more options to buy stuff, more chance to be decadent.

This has been growing for a few generations, including our own.

2) I bet one of the first things cavemen did was bemoan the younger generation as soulless, threatening, debauched evil doers. I was a kid and that same "soulless" argument was used about our generation. Anyone who wears a hoody was going to stab you! Anyone who played GTA was going to kill you all! They may be getting the best test scores ever but this lot are the worst generation ever!

As for killing the cat, animal cruelty was around long before the 2000's. In a lot of history across the world, it was formalized. Bear-baiting for example. Kids, for whatever reasons, being cruel to animals was going in my day, my parents day, my grand-parents day....

There are bad things about society as it is now but the reasons are more complex then the kids now and go back a lot longer then they have been alive.

“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”

Dong Zhou wrote:What is the second defeat to the US? The war of independence and?

The War of 1812, I believe. You guys did manage to burn down the first White House in that one, though. Then again, Andrew Jackson won The Battle of New Orleans after the peace deal was signed. Let's call it evensies.

Dong Zhou wrote:What is the second defeat to the US? The war of independence and?

The War of 1812, I believe. You guys did manage to burn down the first White House in that one, though. Then again, Andrew Jackson won The Battle of New Orleans after the peace deal was signed. Let's call it evensies.

As an American I must say....the British kinda kicked our tails during the War of 1812, the fact that we won a battle after the war was technically over doesn't mean we won the war

"If you can't drink a lobbyist's whiskey, take his money, sleep with his women and still vote against him in the morning, you don't belong in politics."

LiuBeiwasGreat wrote:As an American I must say....the British kinda kicked our tails during the War of 1812, the fact that we won a battle after the war was technically over doesn't mean we won the war

According to Wikipedia, the war ended with what is effectively a white peace, except the Native American allies of the Great Britain were defeated and surrendered. We even took a bit of land from Spain (Mobile District). You probably can't call it a victory, since we did declare war on the Commonwealth, but many of the issues that were the cause of the war ended soon after with Napoleon's defeat, and relations improved considerably with Great Britain after this.

Julius Pratt in the book A History of the United States Foreign Policy (1955) wrote..."Thus indirectly the War of 1812 brought about the acquisition of Florida.... To both the Northwest and the South, therefore, the War of 1812 brought substantial benefits. It broke the power of the Creek Confederacy and opened to settlement a great province of the future Cotton Kingdom."

So calling it a loss would be incorrect, too. It's true we took many more losses in terms of human life and battles during the war, but that alone does not determine victory or defeat. The Soviet Union lost more lives than any other nation in WW2, but you really cannot call the outcome of the war anything but a resounding victory for them.

EDIT: This may account for the fact that everyone has their own take on the "outcome".

During the 19th century the popular image of the war in the United States was of an American victory, and in Canada, of a Canadian victory. Each young country saw its self-perceived victory as an important foundation of its growing nationhood. The British, on the other hand, who had been preoccupied by Napoleon's challenge in Europe, paid little attention to what was to them a peripheral and secondary dispute, a distraction from the principal task at hand.

“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”